US riots
- howlingwolfpaw
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3476
- Joined: Oct 4, 2015
Re: US riots
Maybe all the other officers are leaving or calling in sick in whole districts because they stand with the victim and realize police are the problem.
Re: US riots
So why has he been charged with felony murder?howlingwolfpaw wrote:Saying someone committed aggravated manslaughter is not agreeing with their actions.
I specifically suggested they do find him because they knew who he was.
Yeah they got mad he did not comply and shot at them.... he got aggravated..... his anger led to the manslaughter of the man.
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: US riots
Obviously not, right bud?howlingwolfpaw wrote:Maybe all the other officers are leaving or calling in sick in whole districts because they stand with the victim and realize police are the problem.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
- howlingwolfpaw
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3476
- Joined: Oct 4, 2015
Re: US riots
Will see how it goes... If DA has enough evidence and judge to make it stick, could be acquitted or charges lessened later, just like George Floyds MURDERER had his increased to 2nd degree later on.
- edeholland
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
- ESO: edeholland
- GameRanger ID: 4053888
- Clan: ESOC
Re: US riots
Pretty sure it has been the same for years now. You can remove your old posts when you are the last poster in a thread.iNcog wrote:interesting, we don't have the ability to delete our own posts anymore? @Community TeamiNcog wrote:Guns aren't the problem. Racism is. Among other issues.
Re: US riots
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
Re: US riots
thats literally the DA's job, no DA is gonna undermine their own case in such a statement if they bring up charges - he is simply making the argument to justify his decision.wardyb1 wrote:Now please. Having read what the DA has said about this, if you in anyway find your stance even semi defendable then I don't know what to say any more.
what exactly is so bizarre about it?wardyb1 wrote: So you didn't read the transcript where it says he has been charged with felony murder by the DA. You know the person with a law degree. Also to comment having only seen the 2min clips and not the 40min of body cam footage and still hold your position despite literally the DA saying otherwise is quite bizarre.
the officers attorneys surely gonna make this "bizarre" argument - "You know the person with a law degree"
it is completely reasonable for u to agree with the DA's statement. the logic in dismissing ppl's opinions because a DA said otherwise and act is if a DA's statement on a case is some absolute truth is simple confirmation bias. there is a reason why we have courts. i am sure there r countless examples of DA's not filing charges against cops in cases where u'd disagree.
anyway very weird way to argue, just sayn tho
Re: US riots
Except DA's have historically rarely taken these cases so the fact that they are so they believe they have a certain strength to their case. And yes you are right that the cop's attorney will be making the same counter argument except they will be trying to disprove the actual facts. HWP has done hardly any research and doesn't seem to have much grasp on what actually occurred which hinders the strength of his position.knusch wrote:thats literally the DA's job, no DA is gonna undermine their own case in such a statement if they bring up charges - he is simply making the argument to justify his decision.wardyb1 wrote:Now please. Having read what the DA has said about this, if you in anyway find your stance even semi defendable then I don't know what to say any more.
what exactly is so bizarre about it?wardyb1 wrote: So you didn't read the transcript where it says he has been charged with felony murder by the DA. You know the person with a law degree. Also to comment having only seen the 2min clips and not the 40min of body cam footage and still hold your position despite literally the DA saying otherwise is quite bizarre.
the officers attorneys surely gonna make this "bizarre" argument - "You know the person with a law degree"
it is completely reasonable for u to agree with the DA's statement. the logic in dismissing ppl's opinions because a DA said otherwise and act is if a DA's statement on a case is some absolute truth is simple confirmation bias. there is a reason why we have courts. i am sure there r countless examples of DA's not filing charges against cops in cases where u'd disagree.
anyway very weird way to argue, just sayn tho
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: US riots
I legitemately dont think the atlanta case was the cop doing something wrong. Ive gone over it a bunch of times, considered all scenarios, and in my book the behaviour of the cop was mostly justified. I saw the video a few times now and I heavily lean towards this being self defense. I can see how the force used was excessive (although I dont know if I agree) but in that case I think imperfect self defense could hold.gibson wrote:No you weren't, you were avoiding the point because you know that what the cop did was wrong, and if what he did was wrong your whole point falls apart.
I did not study the law though, but I really feel like once someone aims a deadly weapon at you, you are allowed to defend yourself. Then I argued that maybe the cop should not have chased, but when I think about that some more that doesnt seem like a reasonable argument. Its the duty of a police officer to stop people from running away from an arrest, its their job. I also feel like you prefer the police to stop drunk people from running around with a taser.
Also, the cop's handling of the situation might have been bad, but legally I feel like the most important question is whether this was self-defense. When a drunk person points a taser at you after having shown very aggressive behaviour* I feel like any act of violence falls under self defense.
*I really disagree with the part of the quote wardy posted that claimed the victim was not aggressive. Prior to the arrest he was not, but he resisted arrest in a very aggressive manner and from that point onward I think its completely reasonable to call the victom aggressive.
Disclaimer (yeah the state of esoc is so sad that I think this is necessary); this statement does not make me a racist, I do not deny the problems of racism. I also do not deny problems of police brutality, nor do I think police brutality is acceptable. I do not condone the police behaviour before or after this incident. However in my opinion this is self-defense and I think the cop should not be convicted for murder.
Edit: legally speaking, is it self-defense until proven otherwise? Which party has the burden of proof? I dont think you can say with certainty that the police officer did not act in self-defense. I dont know how to apply the principle innocent until proven guilty here. Does that mean you also not to prove that it was not self-defense? If that is the case, I dont think this police officer should ever be convicted.
Re: US riots
I agree we can't call Aristotle the father of modern science. Francis Bacon would come closer to that. And maybe even Descartes too with his methodological skepticism, rationalism and his emphasis on employing mathematical method to formalise science.RefluxSemantic wrote:post
My mistake, I wasn't implying that alchemy was the foundation of all experimental science, its influence was mainly on chemistry. Astronomy evolved in its own niche, I think, since it was an old ancient science, one of the first forms of science.
Plato and his followers didn't snub experimental empiricism, they just believed physical reality was just a play of shadows, while they were looking for the essence of reality, for the unchangeable from which everything stems. Some forms of rudimentary experimental science existed in the ancient world too, for example Archimedes' principle was discovered experimentally. So I don't think they dismissed experimental science in general, they just didn't have the cognitive infrastructure to study physical reality in a mathematical, statistical and experimental way, with a standardised methodology. That, indeed, came later as a result of multiple accumulations of advances in maths, philosophy of knowledge, etc.
Re: US riots
He never was told he was under arrest. If cops try to handcuff me without telling me why or what is happening then you can be sure as hell I'll be resisting. Also the taser had already been fired, it absolutely posed zero risk to the officer or to anyone else.RefluxSemantic wrote:I legitemately dont think the atlanta case was the cop doing something wrong. Ive gone over it a bunch of times, considered all scenarios, and in my book the behaviour of the cop was mostly justified. I saw the video a few times now and I heavily lean towards this being self defense. I can see how the force used was excessive (although I dont know if I agree) but in that case I think imperfect self defense could hold.gibson wrote:No you weren't, you were avoiding the point because you know that what the cop did was wrong, and if what he did was wrong your whole point falls apart.
I did not study the law though, but I really feel like once someone aims a deadly weapon at you, you are allowed to defend yourself. Then I argued that maybe the cop should not have chased, but when I think about that some more that doesnt seem like a reasonable argument. Its the duty of a police officer to stop people from running away from an arrest, its their job. I also feel like you prefer the police to stop drunk people from running around with a taser.
Also, the cop's handling of the situation might have been bad, but legally I feel like the most important question is whether this was self-defense. When a drunk person points a taser at you after having shown very aggressive behaviour* I feel like any act of violence falls under self defense.
*I really disagree with the part of the quote wardy posted that claimed the victim was not aggressive. Prior to the arrest he was not, but he resisted arrest in a very aggressive manner and from that point onward I think its completely reasonable to call the victom aggressive.
Disclaimer (yeah the state of esoc is so sad that I think this is necessary); this statement does not make me a racist, I do not deny the problems of racism. I also do not deny problems of police brutality, nor do I think police brutality is acceptable. I do not condone the police behaviour before or after this incident. However in my opinion this is self-defense and I think the cop should not be convicted for murder.
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: US riots
So I dont agree with the former point. He might have had reason to act aggressively sure. That doesnt mean he didnt act aggressively though. He did act aggressively, and I think it is completely fair to assume that he did.wardyb1 wrote:He never was told he was under arrest. If cops try to handcuff me without telling me why or what is happening then you can be sure as hell I'll be resisting. Also the taser had already been fired, it absolutely posed zero risk to the officer or to anyone else.RefluxSemantic wrote:I legitemately dont think the atlanta case was the cop doing something wrong. Ive gone over it a bunch of times, considered all scenarios, and in my book the behaviour of the cop was mostly justified. I saw the video a few times now and I heavily lean towards this being self defense. I can see how the force used was excessive (although I dont know if I agree) but in that case I think imperfect self defense could hold.gibson wrote:No you weren't, you were avoiding the point because you know that what the cop did was wrong, and if what he did was wrong your whole point falls apart.
I did not study the law though, but I really feel like once someone aims a deadly weapon at you, you are allowed to defend yourself. Then I argued that maybe the cop should not have chased, but when I think about that some more that doesnt seem like a reasonable argument. Its the duty of a police officer to stop people from running away from an arrest, its their job. I also feel like you prefer the police to stop drunk people from running around with a taser.
Also, the cop's handling of the situation might have been bad, but legally I feel like the most important question is whether this was self-defense. When a drunk person points a taser at you after having shown very aggressive behaviour* I feel like any act of violence falls under self defense.
*I really disagree with the part of the quote wardy posted that claimed the victim was not aggressive. Prior to the arrest he was not, but he resisted arrest in a very aggressive manner and from that point onward I think its completely reasonable to call the victom aggressive.
Disclaimer (yeah the state of esoc is so sad that I think this is necessary); this statement does not make me a racist, I do not deny the problems of racism. I also do not deny problems of police brutality, nor do I think police brutality is acceptable. I do not condone the police behaviour before or after this incident. However in my opinion this is self-defense and I think the cop should not be convicted for murder.
About the taser, how long does it need to reload? Did the cop also fire his taser and miss? I found it hard to see from the video. That is a far better argument though. Does anyone know the specifics of a taser? If it takes very long to reload and the time between it having been fired and the cop responding would make self-defense a hard to sell point. Imperfect self-defense could still be on the table though, because the officer could have panicked or not realized that the taser had been fired?
Re: US riots
Some newer tasers have backup shots, in case you missed the first one
Seems like you can also change the cartridge if you have a spare one.
Seems like you can also change the cartridge if you have a spare one.
Re: US riots
The taser can't be reloaded without more gear so for Rayshard it was completely useless. It could pose absolutely no threat from that point on, until it was back in the cops hands.RefluxSemantic wrote:So I dont agree with the former point. He might have had reason to act aggressively sure. That doesnt mean he didnt act aggressively though. He did act aggressively, and I think it is completely fair to assume that he did.wardyb1 wrote:He never was told he was under arrest. If cops try to handcuff me without telling me why or what is happening then you can be sure as hell I'll be resisting. Also the taser had already been fired, it absolutely posed zero risk to the officer or to anyone else.Show hidden quotes
About the taser, how long does it need to reload? Did the cop also fire his taser and miss? I found it hard to see from the video. That is a far better argument though. Does anyone know the specifics of a taser? If it takes very long to reload and the time between it having been fired and the cop responding would make self-defense a hard to sell point. Imperfect self-defense could still be on the table though, because the officer could have panicked or not realized that the taser had been fired?
Also on the former point, just because he acts aggressively doesn't give them any right to kill him. Especially when that reason is the violation of his rights. You know the things fundamental to being an American. Let's say he doesn't act aggressively. He isn't recording the situation himself, the cops arrest him, they bury the body cam footage as they regularly do and then how is he ever able to prove that they violated his rights?
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: US riots
So Dolan's video shows that we at least dont know if the taser could have been fired another time. It would depend on the model.
Also, I dont necessarily disagree with your latest post. I disagree with the assesment that the victom was not aggressive. He was aggressive. That doesnt give anyone the right to kill another person, but claiming he did not act aggressively is just a blatant lie. It seemed to be used as an argument to dismiss that this was self defense, even though mere seconds before the police firing his gun the victim literally tried to tase the police officer. He was acting aggressively. Anything else should never hold in court.
Also, I dont necessarily disagree with your latest post. I disagree with the assesment that the victom was not aggressive. He was aggressive. That doesnt give anyone the right to kill another person, but claiming he did not act aggressively is just a blatant lie. It seemed to be used as an argument to dismiss that this was self defense, even though mere seconds before the police firing his gun the victim literally tried to tase the police officer. He was acting aggressively. Anything else should never hold in court.
Re: US riots
You can see on the footage Rayshard actually shot with the taser at the cop, but it seems he pointed the taser gun slightly above the cop's head. So the taser clearly had at least another shot before he used it.
I'm not sure if there was yet another shot available, though, after the one he used on the cop.
I'm not sure if there was yet another shot available, though, after the one he used on the cop.
Re: US riots
Where did I ever say he didn't act aggressively? Quote me please because I don't see it. As to the point about tasers, again if you read the DA's statement then you would know that it posed no threat. As much as the DA is trying to prosecute the cop now, I see no reason for them to lie about the taser not being a threat as they would know what type of taser it was.RefluxSemantic wrote:So Dolan's video shows that we at least dont know if the taser could have been fired another time. It would depend on the model.
Also, I dont necessarily disagree with your latest post. I disagree with the assesment that the victom was not aggressive. He was aggressive. That doesnt give anyone the right to kill another person, but claiming he did not act aggressively is just a blatant lie. It seemed to be used as an argument to dismiss that this was self defense, even though mere seconds before the police firing his gun the victim literally tried to tase the police officer. He was acting aggressively. Anything else should never hold in court.
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
Re: US riots
US cops are very aggressive, I don't think anyone doubts that. And the reason why they are like that, as I explained before, is because the country has an aggressive culture, everyone is taught to be a go-getter, to be assertive, even aggressive, to get what they want. And on top of that, almost everyone has access to guns, and the country is a multicultural/multiracial melting pot with segregated cities, and that's a lot of explosive potential.
But that's why you shouldn't try anything fishy with cops in the USA, since they're trained to expect things to go from "hey, how are you" to "holy shit" any moment. So we could debate whether Rayshard was unfairly shot or if there were grounds for the cop to think it was self-defence, but I think we can agree it was a stupid move to try to escape arrest, steal a gun and use it on a cop. You can expect any kind of reaction from cops if you do that, including to get shot.
But that's why you shouldn't try anything fishy with cops in the USA, since they're trained to expect things to go from "hey, how are you" to "holy shit" any moment. So we could debate whether Rayshard was unfairly shot or if there were grounds for the cop to think it was self-defence, but I think we can agree it was a stupid move to try to escape arrest, steal a gun and use it on a cop. You can expect any kind of reaction from cops if you do that, including to get shot.
Re: US riots
On point one, it could also be the fact that cops have almost never had any oversight and have pretty much got away with whatever they want and resemble more of a mafia than any decent police force in another 1st world country.Dolan wrote:US cops are very aggressive, I don't think anyone doubts that. And the reason why they are like that, as I explained before, is because the country has an aggressive culture, everyone is taught to be a go-getter, to be assertive, even aggressive, to get what they want. And on top of that, almost everyone has access to guns, and the country is a multicultural/multiracial melting pot with segregated cities, and that's a lot of explosive potential.
But that's why you shouldn't try anything fishy with cops in the USA, since they're trained to expect things to go from "hey, how are you" to "holy shit" any moment. So we could debate whether Rayshard was unfairly shot or if there were grounds for the cop to think it was self-defence, but I think we can agree it was a stupid move to try to escape arrest, steal a gun and use it on a cop. You can expect any kind of reaction from cops if you do that, including to get shot.
On point two, that seems like a pretty terrible argument or maybe not argument but it seems to excuse cops behaviour. "Hey, your choice is defend your rights and we will shoot you, or have your rights get trampled on and you will never be able to bring any sort of justice against us. Enjoy."
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: US riots
I'm sorry, it appears I misunderstood that quote from the DA. It was early in the morning (not a valid excuse though) and I misread it as them implying the victim was not behaving aggressively at all, whereas I think they only point out that prior to resisting the arrest the victim did not behave aggressively. The only criticism I have is that this point seems somewhat irrelevant, because the actions after that are really what matters, but this is the sort of rhetoric that one would expect in court. Again, my apoligies I misread. I think one of the most important factors now is to determine whether the model of taser used could potentially fire twice in rapid succession.wardyb1 wrote:Where did I ever say he didn't act aggressively? Quote me please because I don't see it. As to the point about tasers, again if you read the DA's statement then you would know that it posed no threat. As much as the DA is trying to prosecute the cop now, I see no reason for them to lie about the taser not being a threat as they would know what type of taser it was.RefluxSemantic wrote:So Dolan's video shows that we at least dont know if the taser could have been fired another time. It would depend on the model.
Also, I dont necessarily disagree with your latest post. I disagree with the assesment that the victom was not aggressive. He was aggressive. That doesnt give anyone the right to kill another person, but claiming he did not act aggressively is just a blatant lie. It seemed to be used as an argument to dismiss that this was self defense, even though mere seconds before the police firing his gun the victim literally tried to tase the police officer. He was acting aggressively. Anything else should never hold in court.
Re: US riots
Why do you think the crime rate in the USA is higher than in other developed countries?wardyb1 wrote:On point one, it could also be the fact that cops have almost never had any oversight and have pretty much got away with whatever they want and resemble more of a mafia than any decent police force in another 1st world country.
On point two, that seems like a pretty terrible argument or maybe not argument but it seems to excuse cops behaviour. "Hey, your choice is defend your rights and we will shoot you, or have your rights get trampled on and you will never be able to bring any sort of justice against us. Enjoy."
The USA has some of the highest average incomes per capita in the world, in every economic measure you want to check, they're among the first 15 countries in the world.
Don't give me the rate of poverty argument, because countries like Portugal, Spain, Greece, Romania, Israel, Poland have higher poverty rates than the USA, but lower crime rate. So, no, it's not poverty rates for sure, there are way poorer countries with lower crime rates.
70% of Egypt's population live on less than 5 dollars per day and they have half the rate of intentional homicide that the USA has. How is Egypt's poverty not leading to at least the same rate of crime as the USA's? It's definitely not poverty that accounts for the USA's high rate of crime compared to other countries.
So, if you have such an unusually high rate of crime in a developed country, how would you expect the police force to be? I surely wouldn't expect them to be like the UK police. There's definitely a link between the high crime rate the USA has and how aggressive their police force is.
Re: US riots
It isn't just poverty, it is poverty + inequality. The US has a higher inequality than any of the countries you listed.Dolan wrote:Why do you think the crime rate in the USA is higher than in other developed countries?wardyb1 wrote:On point one, it could also be the fact that cops have almost never had any oversight and have pretty much got away with whatever they want and resemble more of a mafia than any decent police force in another 1st world country.
On point two, that seems like a pretty terrible argument or maybe not argument but it seems to excuse cops behaviour. "Hey, your choice is defend your rights and we will shoot you, or have your rights get trampled on and you will never be able to bring any sort of justice against us. Enjoy."
The USA has some of the highest average incomes per capita in the world, in every economic measure you want to check, they're among the first 15 countries in the world.
Don't give me the rate of poverty argument, because countries like Portugal, Spain, Greece, Romania, Israel, Poland have higher poverty rates than the USA, but lower crime rate. So, no, it's not poverty rates for sure, there are way poorer countries with lower crime rates.
70% of Egypt's population live on less than 5 dollars per day and they have half the rate of intentional homicide that the USA has. How is Egypt's poverty not leading to at least the same rate of crime as the USA's? It's definitely not poverty that accounts for the USA's high rate of crime compared to other countries.
So, if you have such an unusually high rate of crime in a developed country, how would you expect the police force to be? I surely wouldn't expect them to be like the UK police. There's definitely a link between the high crime rate the USA has and how aggressive their police force is.
mad cuz bad
Re: US riots
If you think the cop did nothing wrong our views on when its okay to kill and the value of human life are in such drastically different places that it's not even worth having a discussion about it. Also I'm not gonna beat around the bush here, if you actually went over it a bunch of times and still think the cop did nothing wrong you're just completely ignorant of police procedure as well as incredibly cold blooded.RefluxSemantic wrote:I legitemately dont think the atlanta case was the cop doing something wrong. Ive gone over it a bunch of times, considered all scenarios, and in my book the behaviour of the cop was mostly justified. I saw the video a few times now and I heavily lean towards this being self defense. I can see how the force used was excessive (although I dont know if I agree) but in that case I think imperfect self defense could hold.gibson wrote:No you weren't, you were avoiding the point because you know that what the cop did was wrong, and if what he did was wrong your whole point falls apart.
I did not study the law though, but I really feel like once someone aims a deadly weapon at you, you are allowed to defend yourself. Then I argued that maybe the cop should not have chased, but when I think about that some more that doesnt seem like a reasonable argument. Its the duty of a police officer to stop people from running away from an arrest, its their job. I also feel like you prefer the police to stop drunk people from running around with a taser.
Also, the cop's handling of the situation might have been bad, but legally I feel like the most important question is whether this was self-defense. When a drunk person points a taser at you after having shown very aggressive behaviour* I feel like any act of violence falls under self defense.
*I really disagree with the part of the quote wardy posted that claimed the victim was not aggressive. Prior to the arrest he was not, but he resisted arrest in a very aggressive manner and from that point onward I think its completely reasonable to call the victom aggressive.
Disclaimer (yeah the state of esoc is so sad that I think this is necessary); this statement does not make me a racist, I do not deny the problems of racism. I also do not deny problems of police brutality, nor do I think police brutality is acceptable. I do not condone the police behaviour before or after this incident. However in my opinion this is self-defense and I think the cop should not be convicted for murder.
Edit: legally speaking, is it self-defense until proven otherwise? Which party has the burden of proof? I dont think you can say with certainty that the police officer did not act in self-defense. I dont know how to apply the principle innocent until proven guilty here. Does that mean you also not to prove that it was not self-defense? If that is the case, I dont think this police officer should ever be convicted.
Re: US riots
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
Re: US riots
@n0el
The higher the Gini score, the higher the wealth inequality:
India: more poverty than the US, lower crime rate than the US, more wealth inequality
Sweden: less poverty than the US, lower crime rate, more wealth inequality than the USA
Egypt: more poverty, less than half the US' crime rate, higher inequality than the US
Turkey: more poverty, less crime rate, higher inequality
Russia: more poverty, more crime rate, higher inequality
It's not that simple, isn't it?
But anyway, who the hell goes out in the streets and does crime because they feel someone makes more money than they do? It's childish to think that, poverty would be a much better motive, but there are countries with a much higher level of poverty and much lower crime rate than the USA. If poverty and wealth inequality were a major cause for crime, India and Egypt would be the pits of hell right now.
The higher the Gini score, the higher the wealth inequality:
India: more poverty than the US, lower crime rate than the US, more wealth inequality
Sweden: less poverty than the US, lower crime rate, more wealth inequality than the USA
Egypt: more poverty, less than half the US' crime rate, higher inequality than the US
Turkey: more poverty, less crime rate, higher inequality
Russia: more poverty, more crime rate, higher inequality
It's not that simple, isn't it?
But anyway, who the hell goes out in the streets and does crime because they feel someone makes more money than they do? It's childish to think that, poverty would be a much better motive, but there are countries with a much higher level of poverty and much lower crime rate than the USA. If poverty and wealth inequality were a major cause for crime, India and Egypt would be the pits of hell right now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests